Chili

Yes but you forget here that Pilate could see nothing wrong with the MAN while the Jews convicted him for his Jewishness by their own law by which he must die (John.19:7) and so is beyond Court room intelligence and is just wherein myth is alive . . . for Jewishness is good to generates the lamb of God that emancipates the son of God to be fully God in the end.

J-D

What!!!!!!??? You just don't make any sense. You have confirmed your undeniable imperfection in clarity of expression. Your response is most ridiculous and completely unreasonable.

It is a historical fact that Jesus Jimenez Zamora was President of Costa Rica from 1868 to 1870. That makes him a historical Jesus. If you can't come to terms with the facts, that's not my fault.

Chili

Hint hint, John was' it' and the lamb of God was crucified but first had to remove the sins of ''his' world, and their atonement message was to offer a sacrifice so you will not get burned yourself as dreamer still in a foreign land where only dreaming possible, poor Joseph, the dreamer he was in Mathew, as it is an evil age when old men have dreams.

And the question here now is "who's world is 'his world' as he is the only one with existence in being as being but not human for sure and you may consider the fact that myth is real and that makes Jesus historical.

Oh and the crucifixion may have been/was real in the same kind of way but was real nonetheless.

J-D

In statistical hypothesis testing, the alternative hypothesis is a specific hypothesis being tested, and the null hypothesis (in all cases) simply takes the form of a negation of the alternative hypothesis.

If we want to test the (alternative) hypothesis that 'the defendant is guilty', then the null hypothesis is 'it is not the case that the defendant is guilty'.

If we want to test the (alternative) hypothesis that 'J-D has clairvoyant abilities', then the null hypothesis is 'it is not the case that J-D has clairvoyant abilities'.

If we want to test the (alternative) hypothesis that 'there is radioactive material in the orange suitcase', then the null hypothesis is 'it is not the case that there is radioactive material in the orange suitcase'.

If we want to test the (alternative) hypothesis that 'J-D is full of shit', then the null hypothesis is 'it is not the case that J-D is full of shit'.

If we want to test the (alternative) hypothesis that 'J-D's first name is Jesus', then the null hypothesis is 'it is not the case that J-D's first name is Jesus'.

If we want to test the (alternative) hypothesis that 'there is a God', then the null hypothesis is 'it is not the case that there is a God'.

Mind you, although some of these hypotheses may be well suited to being investigated by the formal procedure of statistical hypothesis testing, others are unlikely to be so well suited to it.

Chili

Sure and there is lots of evidence for the alternative hypothesis as a biliion people are said to believe it but that is just not good enough to make it real.

Closer to home one must ask why people commit suicide if there is no such thing as a God, which not to say that believing in God will prevent such an act, but if pain and suffering is the motivation to do it, it would be best to tell those people to just kill the ego instead (or have it rapture for all I care), which now makes room for reason to believe because that is really all that happened on the cross, and so paradise was restored in the mind of that man . . . with a price to pay, perhaps so, but that is not the argument here.

I bring this in only to show, that as long as we are divided in our own mind there is room for faith, and as John has shown that via 'the lamb of God' is the only way to get to that end, there is an argument to be made that believe in God is not necessarily wrong.

Beyond that it can be argued that if 'the lamb of God' is the only way to get to heaven, eternal life belongs to the mythology itself, of which then our temporal life is an extraction and so we are freeloaders if we do not believe. Lucky for us then is that faith is a gift of God to us as sons of God, naturally, and I suppose it is our choice to act as sheep or not.

mountainman

From R. Joseph Hoffman The Jesus Project: a Discourse on Method


Hoffman manages to address the question in the 1st person

What does Hoffman mean by this?

I see it as an admission that the histority and the non historicity of Jesus is an hypotheses which can no longer be ignored. Carrier takes the same position and is actively exploring the non historicity hypothesis. Detering on Paul displays precisely the same hypothesis but with Paul. Many Biblical scholars explore the historicity of Jesus. Early Doherty explores the non historicity of Jesus.

"It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can;
it is perhaps because they can be useful to Him in this repsect
that He tolerates their existence."

~ Samuel Butler (1835-1902)
Erewhon Revisited

J-D

Generally speaking, the fact that people say something is not, by itself, enough to make it true. By itself, the fact that people say 'the non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis' is not enough to demonstrate that the statement is true, or even that it has a clear meaning.

Toto

What does it look like? Hoffman was trying to raise money for a project that would pay a lot of scholars to ponder the question of the historicity of Jesus.

Note that he goes on to say that the question needs to be divided into manageable parts. This is not the start of his project.

It's not an admission. It's an assertion. And the hypothesis continues to be ignored by the Jesus Seminar and most other people, including R. Joseph Hoffman.

Write something new and interesting about this topic. If you keep repeating the same words I will close this abomination of a thread.

:angry:

stephan huller

We should all be allowed to vote on the worst thread of the year. Make it annual tradition. I am sure a few of mine would be on there too.

mountainman

Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No - by rjosephhoffmann





Positive hypothesis: "Jesus existed"
zero hypothesis: "Unknown, unknowable, insufficient evidence to decide"
Negative hypothesis" Jesus did not exist"

Hoffman discusses both the positive and negative hypotheses, berating the latter while supporting the former. His overall view might be better represented in support of the zero hypothesis - that we have insufficient evidence to decide. (See post #113)


Therefore Hoffman is not an example of someone who avoids the mention of either hypothesis.